I thought this guy was legit, but when I try to post some valid criticism he censors it. He already deleted my comment once on his debate: "Origin of Life" versus James Tour.
I'm not even a religious person, I just advocate for honest science.
Dave Farina - Fake Scientist
Correction: the time stamp should be 1:32:00
My analysis is based on the comment from the audience during the Q&A. I had the exact same concerns as her...
Oh look he deleted it again
Why did you think he was a real scientist? He's a professional youtuber. "Professor Dave" is just a trademark, like how Bill Nye calls himself "The Science Guy."
I guess I am just too dumb to be able to sense this. I thought he was doing this debate seriously welp
also the first time I responded he constantly flamed me until I posted OP pic
nearly 3 million subs and this is what he does? I'm still in disbelief
He is a fraud. Just another condescending vapid smarter-than-thou arrogant fool. His performance in that "debate" was a disgrace.
>muh papers
Dude is peak midwit.
What are you even arguing for? Sounds like nonsense generated by chatGPT
Was interested in the protection status of L-glutamic used in the study he cited. I looked at the H-NMR results combined with the analysis portion and didn't think it could be conclusively determined.
So you were nitpicking?
Yes, I'm a professional nitpicker
So talk to the authors of the paper instead of posting random youtube comments, if you want to be taken seriously
Is that you professor?
? I'm just pointing out that you'll look like a random crackpot by posting these pointless comments
What do you mean by random? OP - gay as he is - is responding to comments by you professor. This is not random. Pointless? Maybe pointless in that they don't achieve the desired result of furthering a conversation, but each deleted one do reveal your low self-esteem and incompetence.
We can just look at your video views. It seems many have figured out you are a fraud, professor.
You are literally hallucinating right now
Did you even read his comment? He's suggesting that the authors of the paper must do some more experiments to get their conclusion
>Did you even read his comment?
Did you? The entire point of his argument is that Dave decided to use a paper with dubious results as proof of something that the authors don't think is necessarily the case and need more work to figure out.
Paper title: Prebiotic Catalytic Peptide Ligation [...] Facilitating Regioselective [...]
OP: [...] may compromise regioselectivity
>OP:
The OP is citing Singh et. al. who said that. He is not personally saying that, the author is saying that. It's a quote.
It's not a quote lol, show me where that quote is in the paper. Why would the authors disagree with themselves? Use your head please
He's quoting a selection from the author and then showing that the author's noted methodology violates the conditions he himself set and introduces potential errors in the results. OP is presenting a very highly technical argument against a layman's reading of the paper by showing that the contents of the paper present serious contradictions with their claimed results.
You should know how to parse this Dave.
So you went from
>"OP's just quoting the authors!!!"
to
>"OP's just posting his technical sophisticated disagreement (TM) with the authors on a youtube comment instead of contacting them because the evil scientific establishment would censor him if he did that !!!"
Just from this, I can profile you as the typical science denying conspiracy theorist
Professor Dave isn't a professor, from this you can profile him as a liar, groomer, and a lowly scoundrel that will steal even the lowest valor.
How does it feel to be irrelevant dave? Your only contribution is a few million views dabbing on flattards. May as well have been paid to punch downies.
He doesn't have a problem with the authors, he has a problem with a dimwitted layman misinterpreting their results for political reasons.
>"Professor" Dave
At the end of his introductory video he says
>"With knowledge comes wisdom, and if we all get wise enough we can mold the world as we see fit"
The guy is somehow a creepy gnostic and soi bugman at the same time. The less attention you give him the better.
He's the kind of guy who proudly do evil things if the government told him to.
god made life simple as
Dave has a serious mental illness.
> drops out of Chemistry Master's twice because midwit
> calls himself "Professor", combined with his cringe video intro that proclaims "knowledge in the sciences"
> nearly 40 years old
> obsessively monitors 15,000 comments either flaming or deleting the comment to salvage his public image
> wears wigs because he's balding
> jumps on the hype train for every controversial science topic for political reasons. Take your pic: origin of life, flat earth, LGBT he's done it all
>controversial science topic
>flat earth
Hmm
I heard someone else say he has mental illness. What's the diagnosis?
Clinical narcissism.
Seems so
>classic glownagger reasoning
the bugman never fails to satisfy
How much money has this james tour guy grifted from you?
Imagine arguing with some youtube retard that is not even real professor. What next. Argue with leftist wikipedia censors? This leads nowhere.
If you have arguments, do them in academia.
The cowards in academia hide behind their youtube shills. They goaded Dave - a gullible clout chasing maniac 0 to take on Tour. He was played. He actually thought abstracts and titles were science. lmao even.
His smugness was off the charts. He is completely blind to his own hubris.
See